The ruling underclass

I and one of my sons have mostly fled Silicon valley. The other lives in a shrinking island of whiteness that is ever more dangerous and ever more expensive, in San Francisco near the Embarcadero, near where Kathryn Steinle was murdered for being white, and her murderer acquitted, because high status people can get away with shooting second class people.

Hanson complains:

Throw out onto the road three sacks of garbage with your incriminating power bill in them, or dump the cooking oil of your easily identifiable mobile canteen on the side of the road, and there are no green consequences. Install a leach line that ends up one foot too close to a water well, and expect thousands of dollars of fines or compliance costs.

…

A cynical neighbor once summed up the counter-intuitive rules to me: if you are in a car collision, hope that you are hit by, rather than hit an illegal alien. If someone breaks into your home and you are forced to use a firearm, hope that you are wounded nonlethally in the exchange, at least more severely than is the intruder. And if you are cited by an agency, hope it is for growing an acre of marijuana rather than having a two-foot puddle on your farm classified as an inland waterway.I could add a fourth: it is always legally safer to allow your dog to be devoured by a stray pit-bull than to shoot the pit-bull to save your dog.In the former case, neither the owner nor the state ever appears; in the latter both sometimes do.

He fails to name his rulers.

He neglects to notice.:

Is it permissible for a member of Tribe A to criticize Tribe B?

Is it permissible for a member of Tribe B to criticize Tribe A?

In physical conflicts between As and Bs, who is more likely to be the aggressor, the A or the B?

Given equivalent circumstances, is the judicial system more aggressive in punishing offenses of As against Bs, or vice versa?

Given equivalent circumstances, in economic competition between an A and a B, which is more likely to win? If you are looking for a government contract or position, an official distinction, an educational opportunity, etc, etc, is it better to be an A or a B?

Is it more socially marginal for a B to be rude to an A, or an A to be rude to a B?

If the territories of two tribes overlap, one must necessarily rule, one must necessarily be ruled. It is that, or war.

He is ruled.

Humans are naturally fissiparous. During the filming of the “Planet of the Apes”, extras costumed as orangutans formed a tribe, extras costumed as chimps formed another tribe, and extras costumed as gorillas formed yet another a tribe.

But with improved communications and mobility, we don’t get physical separation between tribes. Which is a problem, because if tribal territories overlap, the natural outcome is that one tribe rules, and the other is ruled.

And because white males ruling has been deemed unacceptable, the inevitable outcome is that whites get ruled. Actually war and slow genocide, rather than rule, is the natural outcome, but if we are lucky, careful, and clever, we can avoid that and merely get one tribe ruling and one tribe ruled, though this arrangement is always fragile, unstable, and apt to tip into genocide, slow or swift, unless carefully managed from above.

Empires and their state religions want to make everyone into one big tribe, but this does not work. The great big tribe lacks cohesion and solidarity, and is first parasitised, then predated upon, by smaller tribes within the larger tribe. Too big a tribe, too hard to maintain good behavior.

The traditional solution to this problem is territorial states each with their own state church, the peace of Westphalia. But this is no longer workable. For it to work, needs smaller states and less migration.

The Turkish Caliphate prefigures a solution better adapted to our mobile era, though that solution ended in genocide when the Caliphate, which was keeping the precarious system in balance, fell. The solution to the problem successfully implemented by the Caliphate is microterritories in addition to macroterritories: for example with blacks and whites we get the spontaneous formation of the ghetto and also the spontaneous formation of the black table at the school cafeteria. Put a black in charge of the ghetto, a Jew in charge of the Jewish area. Explicitly recognize territories, acknowledge the black table and the white tables in school cafeteria, make them formal and official and put them overtly and formally under the authority of the relevant tribes.

The concept of equality under the law should be inexpressible and incomprehensible. That we can speak such nonsense means that there is something wrong with our words, which fail to cut reality at the joints. Different tribes naturally have different laws. A member of tribe A in the microterritory of tribe A will of course be subject to different rules than a member of tribe B in the microterritory of tribe B. Equality should only be in that if a member of tribe A is in the microterritory of tribe B, he is under disabilities that are sometimes roughly similar to the disabilities of a member of tribe B in the microterritory of tribe A, though by no means exactly the same.

Which does not mean that a black should not be allowed to sit at the white table at the school cafeteria, or vice versa, but does mean he should only be allowed to sit at the white tables only as a guest of a white person in good standing with the white tribe of cool schoolkids, and this white person shall be responsible for that black person’s good behavior, and if black person misbehaves, then the white person whose guest he was loses his good standing with the white tribe at the school.

Notice how when buses were integrated, when blacks no longer had to go to the back of the bus, whites were forced to stop riding buses in areas with significant black ridership, because of a well founded fear of being beaten up. Diversity plus proximity leads to war.

Similarly, males and females. For reproduction to be successful there needs to be peace between men and women. For there to be peace between men and women, territories outside of the proper female sphere need to be male, and females only be present as a guest of a male, who for fertile age women should always be a father, brother, husband, or betrothed. And if he is not, then she is slut, and sluts should get a substantially lower level or protection than decent women, should likely suffer minor physical violence.

I’m beginning to wonder if the the out-castes in old India were really weaker tribes and because of density of population, in proximity with the in-castes and living in subjugation, the other choices being exile, slavery or genocide.

Similar situation happening in India with possible genocide of Hindus. Religious Hindus on one side with the Christians, Muslims, MArxists, secular Hindus on the other. Recently Xtian groups entered a Hindu temple in India forcefully

The last days of Rome probably looked like this. The Film “Agora” points to this as Christians were getting increasingly aggressive against their polytheist neighbours. The move above makes it clear that Hindus are 2nd class citizens while Christians are part of the ruling coalition.

I wish wish wish there was a coalition of the Fringes against Islam in a primarily Islamic country. Somehow that never happens. I wonder if Islam, as a meme of Arab Imperialism, has some sort of evolutionary advantage. Damned meme just keeps growing and growing. The only thing that changes is the vector.

It is not that coalitions of the fringes do not exist in Islamic countries. It is that when they do exist, the State Department is genocidally hostile to them, while every other coalition of the fringes everywhere else gets State Department support.

This, I think, reflects Obama’s strategy of bombing marginal electorates in flyover country with black male military age Mohammedans – I don’t think US foreign policy is driven the Zionist Occupation government, but by marginal seats in flyover country. Obama wanted Syrian Alawites and Christian murdered, because he wanted Somalis in marginal flyover country electorates.

Now why is the State Department hostile to Coalitions of the Fringes in Islamic countries? And why shouldn’t this strategy be orthogonal to Populating Flyover country with military age Mohammedans. Are the two strategies related? Why do they have to be? Why can’t they be independent of each other?

Not orthogonal, because the black male military age Muslims that Obama was using to bomb marginal electorates in flyover country pay a whole lot of attention to which side the State Department backs in majority muslim countries, so to win elections in flyover country, have to support genocide of the fringes in majority Muslim countries, since the coalition of the fringes in a majority muslim country will include pagans, christians, etc.

To win elections, Democrats have to avoid being seen to back Christians in Muslim majority countries. If you pursue a coalition of the fringes strategy in a Muslim majority country, you are backing Christians, and bingo, the black male muslim voting block you inserted into a marginal electorate starts voting for social conservatives.

Muslims and Latinos have no problem voting for the party of gun control, feminism, and gay rights because they have their own means of acquiring guns, keeping their women in line, and punishing homosexuals. They don’t care about laws; government only exists to take stuff from us and give it to them.

I don’t know Jim. Muslims are pretty Dumb from what I’ve observed in person and in the General discourse. Are you suggesting that these Muslims are smart enough to know that the state Department is on their side? It does not seem to be the case, what with their constant droning of “Allahu Akbar” and “Death to America” Chants.

Every Muslim in the west I have talked to is enthusiastically sympathetic to the idea that “America” is the great enemy of Islam and by extension, his personal enemy. They see America as a monolith the way many Americans see China. Most Americans don’t know about the Power struggle between the Red Empire and the Blue Empire, the Pentagon and the State Department, this being a neo-reaction discovery! And somehow these dumb, screaming muslims know it?

I don’t have an explanation. This simply boggles my mind. I am unable to come up with a plausible explanation that explains all angles. And I have not yet heard an explanation that explains all angles. What is one to do in such a situation? What sort of explanation is most likely to be true?

Maybe I am assuming that the state department and Muslims are rational actors. Perhaps this assumption is wrong. But then if this assumption is wrong, madness is the only likely answer. But I always felt an answer like that is a cop out.

Muslims hate Christians. They correctly perceive the Democrats as hostile to Christians and Christianity. They vote Democratic. Democrats correctly perceive Muslims as reliable voters, import them in very large numbers, and dump them on marginal electorates in flyover country.

Rational is the wrong thing to look for. Men who are unable to tell their guys from their allies from their allies’ enemies from their enemies have less children. They don’t have to know the State Department is their ally and it’s preferable to the State Department for them not to tell the rednecks that the State Department is their ally.

The name State Department is a Jimist slur for our enemies as pertains to foreign policy.

Muzzies in their own countries want “development aid”, and the State Department gives it to them in exchange for certain actions. Muzzies invading our countries want the pussies of our women and other government agencies see to it that they have access in exchange for other actions. The only mudslime Obummer ever wanted to deport made a video about Islam, that was so unacceptable to the professional left that Hillary blamed it for the Benghazi attack.

Why is this any more complicated then Muslims believing, similar to blacks, that Rep’s hate them and Dem’s don’t?

Muslims don’t see the absurdity in siding with Dem’s and the threat this obviously poses to their social conservatism, because they see the Rep’s as posing an actual existential threat (the Right launches crusades). Similar to how progressives don’t see the absurd alliance with ultra-right Islam as a threat to their political power (indeed it has become a valuable tool), while they see trads/reactionary’s as a real threat.

Syria has something vaguely like that with Christians + Alawites holding power disproportionate to their numbers. Lebanon had that too, with a Christian minority that was dominant because the French had favored them, but it didn’t last. The thing in Syria probably won’t either, in the long run.

Trayvon escalated to attempting to murder the neighborhood watch guy after getting caught with stolen jewlery, which was taken to the evidence locker and kept there because if the cops returned it to its owner they would have to acknowledge a crime had been committed by a nigger in high school, which they were under political and financial pressure not to do.

Broward County was in on the federal money for reducing student arrests too. Since it was for reducing arrests year over year, they eventually put the most corrupt cops they had in the schools so they could hide evidence of crimes. Thus the corrupt coward who didn’t even try to stop Cruz.

After being ruled by corrupt political atheists for so long, Russians ostensibly turn to their old religion, but have icons of their most patriotic soldiers despite the Church not recognizing them.

Some day we will pray for intercession from JFK, McCarthy, and Trump. JFK was a pathetic liberal stooge who got in over his head and was easily dealt with by CIA niggers, but he died a patriot and is thus a martyr.

Ordinarily I would want to see proof of a statement like that too. But something was seriously wrong with St. Trayvon of Skittles. Look at how the media slobs tried to spin it and consistently got it wrong. The niggers had their scapegoat, he was going to swing come hell or high water, even the Buckwheat Administration was howling for his blood – and only by the grace of God and the social media did the facts start coming out. Or at least, SOME of the facts.

It’s the first time I heard that one – but I will bet dollars to donuts that P-Mint is right.

He is right. Trayvon was caught with stolen jewelry, whose owner had complained about the jewelry and Trayvon. Despite the jewelry matching the description, the owner was not informed, and the jewelry not returned, because they had exceeded their quota for arresting blacks.

It’s not as simple as tribe B owning A and having A pay tribute to it. It’s more like: mandarinate, which is the supra-tribe C, exercising its power, letting tribe B own A and having A pay tribute to (first) C and to B.

Mandarin super tribe claims mandate of the people. The majority of the people are of tribe B, so …

But the same thing happens, in less extreme form, even when the majority are tribe A, because if Tribe A is forbidden to rule over tribe B, tribe B will rule over Tribe A. Equality is not in our nature.

The Turkish Caliphate prefigures a solution better adapted to our mobile era, though that solution ended in genocide when the Caliphate, which was keeping the precarious system in balance, fell.
…
make them formal and official and put them overtly and formally under the authority of the relevant tribes.

Which links to “freehold” feudal-ish structure, too.
It’s another heritage of the Horde, just like the Russian empire’s policies. It seems to work for as long as those in charge remember that they can’t afford campaigns for fixing things that aren’t broken (at all, or at least if they want to have resources and free hands for fixing things that get broken).

It appears to be white nationalist purity spiraling. Complains about patriarchy, PUA and Andrew Anglin. I’m pretty sure Jim is aware of the general disapproval from the WN community, but it is irrelevant- they don’t have power and never will get it.

No country needed the poz more than Saudi Arabia. Their population has been exploding since 1940 and with an average IQ of 84, they’re not about to branch out from their core competency of sitting around collecting petro-welfare.

I suspect that he doesn’t just hate Jews and the eternal Jew, he also hates men and the eternal masculine, and maybe hating Jews and the eternal Jew is mostly just a cover for hating men and the eternal masculine, which is certainly by far the greater crime, for what man can love his woman or his children if he hates his fellow man, and what man can love his fellow man if he hates himself?

Jim says it’s a conspiracy of status signalers pushing leftism. Which is true, and it’s a testament to the success of neoreaction that it takes so little space to assert. Nazis say many of them are individually jews because they feel the opposite of a sense of ownership and pride in America and if their social engineering makes the US too unlivable they can always leave.

In terms of exactly who and when and why, however, it’s a network of satan-worshiping pedophiles and Clowns In America. Admiral Rogers tipping His Majesty off about the wiretapping wasn’t His first contact with patriots. The battle between patriots and traitors is taking so long because assets like MS-13 they can use to assassinate Seth Rich need to get out of the country and various corruption networks like the Saudi thing need to be cleaned up first.

Some probably antifa patsy was told to park his dump truck on the congressional republicans’ train track. A drone alerted the train so it could brake hard enough it avoided derailing, but the patsy died. We should tell the antifa that that’s what their CIA handlers intend for them.

The Tribe ruling whites isn’t Mexican or Black.
I was very reluctant to admit that due to personal ties myself.
You’re not admitting what is obvious to everyone who isn’t 100% incurably Blue Poz Pilled.

Again and again Hanson cites the Laws are against us.
Those aren’t Mexican or Blacks writing those laws, sitting on the courts…
they’re pawns. Execrable pawns but pawns nonetheless.

Don’t even bother refuting with Angelo Mozilla etc…he doesn’t run the Fed, Treasury, dominate Finance, Law, Media, Academia and the Puritans are long dethroned from Power [WASPS].

We must be men in our own lands and rule ourselves-which means that Tribe must be toppled and banned from Power. At least sufficiently checked.
Does that mean National Socialism? No.
It means Americans must again rule America.

Thanks to the Climategate files, we have a pretty good picture of who is to blame for warmism. It is obvious that they hate white people and white civilization, and are cooking up a rationale for denigrating whites, technology, industry, and the old scientific method, but Jews, though over-represented, are far from dominant. Rather, the Climategate files fit with the Moldbug model: a holiness spiral, endogenous to white anglos, descended from Puritanism and Brownism.

The problem is not rule by Jews, but rule by priests, and those priests trapped in a holiness spiral. The problem is not that Goys are prevented from ruling over lesser races by Jews, but that whites feel really bad about ruling over other races that need someone ruling over them, so they wind up being ruled by those lesser races.

Look at this website white knighting women. They will have a similarly horrified reaction to my proposals for segregation. “Oh no, if we rule over South Americans, it will lead to race mixing”. It is not the Jews stopping them from ruling. It is their internalization of their own second class citizenship. That they believe that males are rightly second class to females tells me that they want an ethnostate, because they believe that whites are rightly second class to South Americans and East Asians. Beta mentality. Need conquistador mentality. It is not the Jews, it is the guys on that blog. The Jews are not stopping them from ruling. They themselves are ashamed to rule. If not willing to rule women, not willing to rule South Americans. If they think women their superiors, they think everyone their superiors. Betas.

The question is, does a homogeneous white society help, or does it make the problem even worse? If a homogenous white society made a difference, one would expect the poz to quietly, undrammatically, and spontaneously stop, to reach some equilibrium level of poz.

Once the poz gets serious, I only see it stopping by dreadful violence administered by a single ruler with absolute power, in which situation “homogeneous” and “white” is unlikely to make the slightest difference.

So where is and when was this homogeneous white society that you tell me solves the problem?

The Poz was stopped in Cromwell’s England in exactly the way it was stopped in Stalin’s Russia.

Because women are weak, they are opportunistic, and thus Gay pride day will continue to be celebrated by women as long as their are no consequences to their doing so.

Gay pride is a product of Gamma and Lambda males displaying status over male society. Display of status without consequence leads to establishment of power in the territory of the display.

Any display of status is an attractor to women. The same woman who is endlessly proud of her ethnic group, will spread her legs for the conquering male of an invading tribe.

The proper thing to do would be to string up the parade organizers and beat to death any parade attendees who do not vacate the area fast enough. Women attendees should be treated as feral. If not under male influence, should be forcibly placed under such. If currently under male influence, removed from current and given to another.

At the very minimum do not attend and express disgust as that is a sign of resistance to your conquerors. Not ideal, but better than nothing.

Being the product of an autistic sperg’s analysis of human social behavior, it’s an autistic sperg analysis of human social behavior. Reality reduces to “alpha free love”, “beta contractual intercourse”, and “charlie delta echo foxtrot just deserts”.

Tried. You get war. WWI Germany was that kind of society, people signalling with “May God punish England” lapel pins. This kind of society just launches wars until completely exhausted.

I think even some of the men on Jim’s list did that. Arguably, Napoelon reconciled left and right through nationalism. War until complete exhaustion.

And no, war these days is not a good idea. It has the opposite of that ennobling effect the Nietzsche types think it has. The gallant, brave men die in the first rows and draft dodging gammas get the women, because women, eventually, when near the wall, will settle for anything.

Arguably this is why I currently see shitty genetics in Central Europe. I seems the two world wars were hugely dysgenic here. Look at people’s faces and they look like great-grandpa was a draft dodger.

Nationalist exuberance -> war
Anti-nationalist exuberance -> war, but against the nation

Sounds like the real problem here is letting signaling get out of control instead of having a mechanism to keep the vagaries of fashion from dictating policy.

In practial terms, people will signal. Current signaling from the petit-bourgeois is conservative liberalism, and current signaling from the lumpenproletariat is nomcomformist conservatism. Everyone agrees this is weird.

Ten years ago, when David Hogg was around eight, it became cool for liberals to openly acknowledge that Rosa Parks was a plant and Joe McCarthy was right. Now Hogg is eighteen and he thinks liberals have always been not just deeply cynical but cynical on the surface as well.

Currently it’s possible for any idiot to put up one American flag amd one string of Christmas lights and be a better patriot and Christian than the entire block. As soon as the petit-bourgeois start to see that kind of thing as cool, they’ll vastly beat the lumpenproletariat at being good patriots, Christians, husbands, fathers, neighbors, and having good table manners, they’ll clean the streets of cigarete butts and grass between the sidewalk tiles, and they’ll replace the gaudy fading pink flamingoes on unkempt lawns with stone angels and alligators on nice lawns.

>Sounds like the real problem here is letting signaling get out of control instead of having a mechanism to keep the vagaries of fashion from dictating policy.

Yes. Hence the idea that a king should dictate policy and a state church should not let signalling get out of control.

Interesting how in the past there were many excellent critiques of democracy but not this one. They should have noticed that just like how escalating fashion competition can result in shoes one can hardly walk in, politics can also get very extreme in a democracy due to everybody trying to have a more fashionable opinion than their neighbor.

Jim you don’t know what the fuck you are talking about i have spent 60 years in new york city watching the rabbis meet the Hi Cog hayseeds as they get off the busses and port authority and turn them out into card carrying commie priests. The jews run the intellectual circles in the cities and for 100 years they have made sure wasps wanting in were of the right sort and turn into the right sort.
Youre a cuck like land and the rest youre just like NRO you cant face the ugly truth got a lot of jew friends but facts is facts. I have even suggested keeping the jews but finding ways to force assimilate them. But to deny the facts is utter cuckery. even if I were to buy the jew moldberg argument that its not the crypto jews but the crypto calvinists its still because they have a jew religion. But please keep telling yourself and these little kids that follow you how its not the jews its the calvinists

its enough to read jewish blogs and websites, the most problematic jews write in english. well I dont actually know but my impression is the non english writers aree mostly concerned with israeel and Im fine with jews looking out for jew interests i even support it, not subverting my legislature to pwn us to do it for them but jew nationalism is fine everyone should have a safe place.
Core problem is maybe a bit strong, i dont hate jews or think the vast majority of them have evil intentions.Im not even positive someone like soros is evil. So im not of the zog conspiracy or nazi clan, im not even of the wn clan per se. I actually like a lot of jews even though they are mostly leftist. im of the open your fucking eyes and admit what you see clan. Maybe you guys dont know many jews. I have lived in nyc all my life and if you are of a certain class and IQ at least half your friends will be jews, my parents were arty intellectuals so it was even more than 50%.
How did i infer it? I began my lessons by infiltrating cocktail parties in my parents drawing room in the 60s- 80s and while stealing sips and puffs listening intently to what were almost nothing but political argument and cultural critique. I noticed who had status and which groups tended to favor what points of view and who prevailed over the decades. A lot of semi famous and some very famous people were at these parties along with a lot of starving artists and intellectuals that never quite made it. I listened to all this while the revolution raged all around me in the village of NYC where i grew up. probably because of this i became a voracious reader at first of all the 60s and 70s stuff.mailer updike malamud vidal cheever baldwin and a lot of sci fi and classical stuff. I saw what was going on in lit, jews were using it to change society for the “movement” if you read the whites cheever and updike for instance both had essays about coming to nyc and being influenced by jews. one of them describes it as an irresistable seduction, I watched my own fathers an ivy league actor and conservative influenced by the jewish theatre gods like the adlers his classmates many of them very famous also went to the same acting studios run by the same few jewish clans and I watched all these midwesterners turn into leftist because class doesnt end when class is over its a whole ,milieu youre immersed in. The writers playwrights actors theatre owners musicians politicians activists media owners and a thousand other – you know this cant be explained in a blog comment. But I watched with my own eyes that the jews by the 60s owned the intellectual and cultural high ground and were there to greet the white talent as it came to the cities and universities, as i listened to the war stories i learned this was not an accident and had been going on for at least 50 years before the 60s.read how the hayseed white john reed gets to harvard and meets the commie jew then trace reeds infecting the entire circle of 20 and 30s white artist intellectuals. some of those whites and jews were at the parties i was eavesdropping at, ironically one day in the 80s i guess it was warren beatty cam by to talk to my dad about being in a film he was doing Reds because they both were in the same group with stella Adler in the late 50s. you see the chain is never broken. I learned the word nigger from the panthers children at the bernstein’s party that night memorialized in radical chic.They never stopped saying it and kids will be kids, his wife worked with both my dad and was a friend of my mom while she still lived in london, but our next door neighbor bill tatum was the editor of the amsterdam news the black nyc paper and his wife was a jewess were also friends as were many other people. the web is endless the degrees of not separation i could describe would go on for ages. I watched this i watched how whites are indoctrinated to leftism by jews or jew trained white and how its reinforced and is almost inescapable. And i watched what started as a rarefied priestly caste was over decades mass produced. I lived in the east pole of the counter culture the original pole the one that stated decades before the west coast had any cultural or intellectual significance. I lived in a place where in the early 60s screw magazine and all the rest was openly displayed along with fritz the cat and comic books and a hundred lefty magazines, I watched the plague spread from obscure corners of the lower east side to mainstream USA. And it was almost always the jews and when it wasn’t it was someone who had been influenced by them or influenced by someone who had been.I have repeatedly used the term good white leftism as opposed to jew leftism and said good white leftism is always about fixing and improving and jew leftism is about destroying and power. this holds true about the art and culture even the types of subversion differ. Jews naturally dont worry about harming white civilization its not theirs, whites even rebel whites on some level care. Now of course we are now at a point where some whites really are so far gone that rule doesn’t hold as well but if you examine the last 150 years it holds fairly well. whites are trying to repair their civilization when sincerely thinking it needs repair improvement jews are trying to wreck it or take it over. How consciously they do this i would say varies I couldn’t like so many jews if i saw they mostly do this maliciously. but they often do it consciously thinking its the work of the good and happens to also be good for the jews.Like the black and brown problems we tended to think we could afford this mischief and that confronting it would make things worse. we were wrong. White certainly are guilty of letting this happen though i actually think most leftism even the jew kind was sort of bound to happen as a result of the historical changes that unfolded over the past 500 years particularly the past 100. But if not for jews it would not have gone so evil to the point the only way out will be an armageddon war of some sort.

Here is why I consider Anti-Semitism highly counter-productive. Whenever Jews wake up and move rightwards, they can be extremely useful in the Andrew Breitbart and Larry Auster or Leo Strauss (Three Waves of Modernity) sense. Probably the same verbal IQ that makes them produce a lot of lawyers and writers. Boy Jews can talk. They are the best talkers. The best writers. The best with words.

I will not deny that my first slightly reddish pill was Irving Kristol’s Neoconservatism: Autobiography of an Idea. Yes, I know, I know what a negative effect they had on Paleocons, but from my angle I was there, a typical liberal urbanite, from Central Europe where alternatives to liberalism hardly existed anymore, and Kristol was able to open that door in my mind at least a little, make me believe in some slightly nonliberal ideas. This opened the door for accepting more nonliberal ideas later on. Because he could argue that well, a real smooth and persuasive writer.

And another feature of Jews is paranoia. Gavin MacInnes wrote he knows excellent Jewish intellectuals who sincerely think Trump, that Trump who has Jewish grandchildren, is going to gas them. It is crazy.

So what do you do when have a bunch of very good propagandists, very convincing writers, talkers, essentially, who are paranoid? Harp on about how they are evil and are controlling everything? Scare them? Or you try to get them on your side, recruit them, at least recruit enough to sort of neutralize the rest? Recruit them by using their paranoia, giving them something, someone else to fear, not you?

You say that is impossible because they hate Whites and want to undermine them? Even if that was true which I seriously doubt, people of a high verbal IQ would be expected to care more about their own interests than about hatred. Why shouldn’t a tactical alliance be possible? I see their interests more and more lining up with those of Whites.

Hint: they are really, really afraid of high-T, low-IQ, ghetto underclasses. If you read “Moldberg” closely you spot that his personal motivation seems to be being afraid of da boyz from da hood. That he wants to live in a place that is really safe and secure. Now, that is precisely one way such a tactical alliance can come about. Basically the Right has to promise that it will never hurt Jews as Jews, Jews as Progs maybe yes but it is acceptable for them to recant and then it is forgiven. And also promise to not let the boyz from da hood, nor the boyz from da sand, nor any other troublemaker hurt them or any other law abiding citizen who minds his own business. Which is exactly the same what Whites need.

Just about the first thing a serious reaction would do is to end all kinds of anti-segregation laws. It is entirely normal for people to want to live in ethnic communities. This is basically the first step of making Whites safe. Even becoming a minority would not matter then much like how being a minority in, say, colonial Algeria or Egypt mattered. Just make White-only communities, protect their perimeter, problem solved. Do you think there are not enough Breitbart type Jews who would gladly take a similar deal, precisely because they are paranoid?

Then we want more White kids. Mostly likely that requires patriarchy. Again I see a possible deal with Jewish men. Their historic culture was patriarchical. They tend to be betas who benefit from patriarchy. And patriarchy would almost certainly eliminate mixed marriages. They would like that as mixed marriages tend to remove people from their community.

Maybe I am an idiot. But I think the high-IQ populations must be able to form tactical alliances once things become dire enough.

>Just about the first thing a serious reaction would do is to end all kinds of anti-segregation laws. It is entirely normal for people to want to live in ethnic communities. This is basically the first step of making Whites safe. Even becoming a minority would not matter then much like how being a minority in, say, colonial Algeria or Egypt mattered. Just make White-only communities, protect their perimeter, problem solved. Do you think there are not enough Breitbart type Jews who would gladly take a similar deal, precisely because they are paranoid?

>Then we want more White kids. Mostly likely that requires patriarchy. Again I see a possible deal with Jewish men. Their historic culture was patriarchical. They tend to be betas who benefit from patriarchy. And patriarchy would almost certainly eliminate mixed marriages. They would like that as mixed marriages tend to remove people from their community.

Sure, and Disraeli was right saying Jews are natural priests, meaning, martyrdom does not stop their virtue signalling. But we don’t need all or even most Jews. Just the normal folks who think making money and raising 5 kids in safety while porking two mistresses besides the wife and having a shot at being a local tribal elder is what life is about.

Just straight-up say that you like Jews that don’t hate property rights and responsibility, and do hate Jews that do. Adjust the words for ‘property rights and responsibility’ as needed so the audience du jour isn’t confused by their own ignorance.

> “Rootless cosmopolitans” is a rhetorical device. Everyone now recognizes this as a synonym for “Jews”, even though it specifically tries not to be one.

“Rootless cosmopolitans” isn’t a synonym for “Jews”. Jews are overrepresented among rootless cosmopolitans because they have a genetic proclivity to the traits associated with the folkways associated with rootless cosmopolitanism, but rootless cosmopolitanism is not an inherently Jewish phenomenon. Jews are at most a subset of rootless cosmopolitans, not rootless cosmopolitans a subset of Jews.

>There’s a reason for that?

Hitler?

>“The Cathedral” was a very good attempt. If anything, it’s not (yet) a synonym for “Jews”.

I know a bunch of Jews, they’re all good people, and none of them are associated with the Cathedral any more than the average high-end credentialed professional is associated with the Cathedral. If you come for them, you’re coming for the wrong people. And that’s the core of the issue: you have no visibility into the people who rule your mind.

““Rootless cosmopolitans” isn’t a synonym for “Jews”. Jews are overrepresented among rootless cosmopolitans because they have a genetic proclivity to the traits associated with the folkways associated with rootless cosmopolitanism, but rootless cosmopolitanism is not an inherently Jewish phenomenon. Jews are at most a subset of rootless cosmopolitans, not rootless cosmopolitans a subset of Jews.”

Yes, that’s what I said. The words “rootless cosmopolitans” have been specifically chosen to not mean “Jews”, yet if you say something bad about rootless cosmopolitans on Twitter or Facebook, everyone will assume that you speak of Jews, and the ADL will ban you.

There’s a reason for that and it’s not Hitler. The reason is that the left half of the bell curve prefers coarse and easily identified categories, so if you make up some term whose words ostensibly mean something, but each time you use it the target just happens to be Jewish (because of legitimate overrepresentation reasons), they will associate this term with being Jewish. You can fight this tendency if you control the media. The additional problem here is that the media controllers actually _want_ your rhetorical device to become a synonym for “Jewish”, because they want to paint you as anti-Semitic. So you’d be fighting a battle that cannot be won.

“If you come for them, you’re coming for the wrong people.”

What I’m saying here is that even if you “come for” the right people, you will still be perceived as coming for the wrong people.

Perhaps the fact that we’re talking about Jews makes it harder for the point to come across, so consider journalists instead. Some of those are, I assume, good people. You only want to attack the bad ones. So you call them, say, “fake news”, to distinguish them from the ones doing real news. Does this only attack the bad journalists and leave the good ones unscathed? Does trust in journalism as a whole remain unchanged, with only the bad journalists suffering a loss thereof?

“You say that is impossible because they hate Whites and want to undermine them?”

Yes, that’s why it’s impossible.

“Even if that was true which I seriously doubt, people of a high verbal IQ would be expected to care more about their own interests than about hatred.”

Ashkenazi intelligence is the result of selective pressure on mental traits. That pressure wasn’t exclusively for verbal IQ and the non-SAT-score mental differences are real as well. There hasn’t been any kind of selective pressure to moderate their tendencies towards subversion if it will actually kill the host – the host society is supposed to keep that in check and if it doesn’t then it’s a prisoner’s dilemma anyway since subversion still has the individual benefits and dialing it back has only social benefits.

“Why shouldn’t a tactical alliance be possible? I see their interests more and more lining up with those of Whites. ”

Congratulations – you may see that but it’s amazingly obvious that they don’t.

“Hint: they are really, really afraid of high-T, low-IQ, ghetto underclasses. If you read “Moldberg” closely you spot that his personal motivation seems to be being afraid of da boyz from da hood. That he wants to live in a place that is really safe and secure. Now, that is precisely one way such a tactical alliance can come about. Basically the Right has to promise that it will never hurt Jews as Jews, Jews as Progs maybe yes but it is acceptable for them to recant and then it is forgiven. And also promise to not let the boyz from da hood, nor the boyz from da sand, nor any other troublemaker hurt them or any other law abiding citizen who minds his own business. Which is exactly the same what Whites need.”

This is entirely wrong. Who fucking unleashed the boyz from da hood in the first place in the late 1960s? There basically wasn’t a crime problem in cities until Jews fully took over the left in the late 60s.

“Do you think there are not enough Breitbart type Jews who would gladly take a similar deal, precisely because they are paranoid? ”

YES! – because a component of that is that there will be white neighborhoods that exclude Jews as well.

If there was going to be a push by Jews to align with normal people to keep society from dying, we’d see it happen in Europe first. That isn’t happening.

Being a reactionary means admitting people in the past knew what they were doing. Which means repealing Jewish emancipation. Humans are motivated by status, this means a lose of status for Jews so politically active Jews aren’t going to ever go for any true right wing.

The exceptions are going to be mixed offspring and autistic individuals; the former have different incentives (and will break both ways), the latter can’t really see (and therefore care) about most social status.

We tried tactical alliance with our jews against Soviet tyranny. Did it work? No. We would be better off if Stalin had forced us all to learn Russian and work for bread lines.

Jews have for several centuries used religion, politics, and pseudoscience to convince us that they are our guys or our allies or neutral in our fight with our enemies. It’s what they do.

Recently they used our women against us:
“Babe, we have so much, I really love you, what is it that you want most?”
“I want you to have competition from military age aggro children and I want to see you fight for me against impossibe odds”
“Consider it done babe”

You could say, no, that’s just our women doing what women do, but they wouldn’t express themselves so directly without Professor Coinblatt making it respectable to. Women have the impulse to summon demons to give them the alpha dick they all think they deserve. They are supposed to be restrained from actually doing it by respectability.

That is because they have Jewish Privilege. They know English, but you don’t know Hebrew, so they can continue to screw you over.

Points to consider:

Can you have an opinion about Islam without knowing Arabic?
Can you have an opinion about Judaism without knowing Hebrew?

Can you have an opinion about Plato without knowing Greek?
Can you have an opinion about Macchiavelli without knowing Italian?

Can you have an opinion about racism, without studying Apartheid? Do you have to read Verwoerd in the original Afrikaans?

Did Freyja whore herself out to seven ugly dwarves, or is this a libel based on a bad translation and should we read the Edda in the original Old Norse?

Do we really know whether the Aryans were blond, or should we read the Vedas in the original Sanskrit?

Maybe the Aztecs were peaceful and tolerant and should we study the Codex in the original Nahuatl…

Maybe Kautilya and Sun Zi opposed any form of deceit and insisted we should always tell the truth. Maybe people slandered both philosophers and should we read their writings in the original Sanskrit and Classical Chinese.

Can we really understand Leninism and Stalinism without learning Russian and then proceed to study both Kto? Kogo? and the Diamat in the original language?

No one knows Hebrew, in the sense that the rabbis have been radically revising the meaning of their scriptures every century or so for two thousand years.

Our best information of what it used to mean is the Septuagint, which was the orthodoxy as to what the Hebrew used to mean before the pharisees got to turning it upside down and backwards every few decades or so.

So, the question you should ask, is can you have an opinion on Judaism without knowing classic Greek.

And the answer is, yes you can, because you can compare the latest Judaism with yesterday’s Judaism.

Sure we might not be able to know exactly what words the Russians used to internally describe their introspective experiences as they were led to their last day at the salt mines……. but we can quite easily see THAT they were led to their last day at the salt mines.

Call me a behaviourist if you want, but this radical relativism is a difference that makes no difference.

Heck, I see your impossibility and amplify it: you can’t even know for sure what your OWN inner life is like in your OWN language.

Consciousness is the story we tell ourselves about how we think it might have been for us.

> Consciousness is the story we tell ourselves about how we think it might have been for us.

That’s true in a sense, as it’s clear that consciousness follows action in that first an entity does something and then it figures out what has been done. But it’s also false, in that though consciousness follows any particular action, it doesn’t follow all actions; it precedes the actions temporally following the consciousness. So it might be said that consciousness is the thing analyzing what has been done and tweaking the automatic actions of “later”. Each higher layer of processing is more abstract and thus more general and capable, and being more abstract, is slower. The very highest levels of consciousness in humans in terms of may take several hundred milliseconds to multiple seconds to complete one loop. If we count culture as a shared consciousness, which is probably humans’ most recent secret sauce, then the highest layers may be considered to take years to decades to centuries to complete one loop.

Consciousness appears to be asking what am I doing and why and how do I do this better. It”s obviously useful in fighting other animals 1v1.

Once large scale wars started it became crucial to know the difference between our guys, our allies, neutrals, our allies enemies, and our enemies, and to be nationalist, aka spiritual, as in recognizing that the individual is part of something greater – the nation – and must fight for it even at cost to self. This is the latest part and it was subject to hijacking by a race that evolved at the crossroads of the ancient world with the ecological niche of hijacking it.

Autists can’t IFF and aren’t very spiritual. They don’t understand when they’re being made fun of, they don’t understand who they’re supposed to respect, they don’t understand that this and that person is of this and that race and ethnicity with this and that relationship to us, except in software. Thus all the bizarre spiritual theories from the autists, and the racemixing of the autists, and the inability of autists to behave in social situations.

In my opinion, consciousness is just a byproduct of IQ. Anything sufficiently intelligent will be conscious.

Chess programs were long thought to lack, therefore need, “positional understanding”. Turned out that positional understanding is just a byproduct of playing strength, and sufficiently strong programs appeared to have acquired positional understanding, without that being programmed in.

Artificial intelligence is easy. A computer can beat me at maths or chess. A spider cannot. But a spider is obviously conscious, a chess playing computer or a language translation program obviously not conscious.

So, intelligence easy, consciousness … well, we don’t quite know what consciousness is. Maybe if we knew what it is, it would be easy.

>Chess programs were long thought to lack, therefore need, “positional understanding”. Turned out that positional understanding is just a byproduct of playing strength, and sufficiently strong programs appeared to have acquired positional understanding, without that being programmed in.

Think of “positional understanding” as awareness hammered into an embodied form (DNA) by eons of Darwinian selection. Two competing “modes” of organism appear in response to ever-changing environmental pressures: one “brute-forces” the problem of optimal fitness on bare metal, and one builds innumerable layers of abstractions one on top of the other.

Chess is a simple game. Go required literal self-teaching, self-learning AI operating on a Darwinian model to produce sufficient abstraction to be effective.

>Two competing “modes” of organism appear in response to ever-changing environmental pressures: one “brute-forces” the problem of optimal fitness on bare metal, and one builds innumerable layers of abstractions one on top of the other.

Right, and I’m saying that for an observer (us) these will both appear conscious, even if their underlying mechanisms to solve the problem are entirely different.

That is, consciousness is an emergent property of any solution to the problem, however achieved.

Consequently, there’s no need to specifically aim for consciousness. Solve the problem and it will appear.

> A self driving car has millions of times more processing power than the brain of a spider, but shows no signs of consciousness.

Analog is not comparable to digital.

I don’t think spiders are conscious.

Very little of the processing power that went into designing the spider is stored in the spider. A giant quantum evolutionary supercomputer called Earth designed the spider as a flexible part of the species net covering the planet. The spider is dumb; the net is smart.

The behavioral similarities we see between ourselves and a spider are because we both are animals born of the same net, not because we are both conscious.

“Chess playing computers play chess way better than any human, but show no signs of consciousness.”

The argument is that chess playing computers show signs of “positional understanding” as a byproduct of their playing strength, without that having been programmed in. Attempts to program that in have failed.

It’s not possible for the chess program to show signs of consciousness because it has no way of expressing such signs.

“A self driving car has millions of times more processing power than the brain of a spider, but shows no signs of consciousness.”

That’s because the self-driving car does not (yet) try to solve the general intelligence problem from whose solution consciousness emerges as a byproduct. (And probably because its processing power is not enough for brute-forcing the problem even if it were trying to solve it.)

The spider in you example, by the way, was not in that novel a situation. It could tell you’re a predator because of your eyes, and it acted accordingly.

“We evaluated the fully trained instances of AlphaZero against Stockfish, Elmo and the previous version of AlphaGo Zero (trained for 3 days) in chess, shogi and Go respectively, playing 100 game matches at tournament time controls of one minute per move. AlphaZero and the previous AlphaGo Zero used a single machine with 4 TPUs.”

Guys I’m sorry I didn’t mean to cause a digression. My only point was that even in a much stronger version of what our learned friend’s claiming about needing to be Hebrew to understand the Talmud, it still wouldn’t matter because there is such a thing as objective reality, Quine’s indeterminacy notwithstanding.

For what it’s worth, I was given a lot of pause for thought by Jim’s spider anecdote. I remain a Dennettian when it comes to consciousness and an orthodox Christian when it comes to ultimate cause and moral truth, but certainly a lot of our current assumptions about complex vs simple minds are biased in ways we don’t yet fully understand, and yes indeed consciousness has more to do with the needs of being a spider than the needs of being Google/Skynet.
As for ’emergence’, the Chalmers/Searle literature is debunked in my opinion and there’s nothing more to say about it.

> So, intelligence easy, consciousness … well, we don’t quite know what consciousness is. Maybe if we knew what it is, it would be easy.

If we say that a spider has consciousness, then perhaps consciousness is at the crossroads between biological Darwinism (cells on a protein substrate) and generalized (though relative) problem-solving ability (return to proliferation of the fittest). The set of conscious beings would then include the spider, though the spider is probably at the very lower limit of shared ancestry with us in terms of having sufficiently primal shared circuitry such that we can recognize it as a “being”.

The most interesting single aspect of Darwinism, in my opinion, is that as Darwinian beings we are intrinsically incapable of recognizing anything that does not directly or indirectly affect our fitness. The world or the universe could be possessed by extradimensional creatures (literal spirits, demons, what-have-you) but if these hypothetical entities never had any affect on our fitness, we would be unable to detect them in the same way as cave-dwelling organisms, unexposed to light, lack (or lose) their light-detecting devices.

> This elephant was more spiritual than most niggers. Only a kike would argue that the magical thinking of low-IQ niggers has anything to do with spirituality.

You can’t make that claim merely by looking at modern Africans, whose ancestors’ traditional culture (burial traditions being an integral part of traditional culture) was destroyed by Christian missionaries and the material products of industrial technology. We wouldn’t fare so well either if we were suddenly descended upon by an intergalactic civilization hell-bent on “civilizing” and “converting” us to completely alien ways of life. Hell, I’d probably spend the rest of my short and pathetic life doing literally nothing but pushing the big red button on my magical dopamine releaser pocket gadget, which is basically what happened to groups like the Amerindians with alcohol and the Aborigines with heroin or whatever their soma of choice is.

> Pretty sure that consciousness is a means for solving the problem of flexible behavior. It will not spontaneously appear from any old attempt at solving the problem.

Flexible behavior being the Darwinian-compatible behavior of complex multicellular organisms.

> Chess playing computers play chess way better than any human, but show no signs of consciousness.

The chess-playing computers’ consciousness is entirely the ability to foresee chess moves. Probably, the ability to predict ideal courses of action is consciousness.

> Language translation software shows no signs of consciousness.

Language translation software attempts to reproduce the entire human symbolic apparatus without any of the aggregate human evolutionary experience. If its utility function is to perform language translation and its success is judged by humans, given enough time and “precomputation” it will reach human competency at this task.

> A spider shows obvious signs of consciousness. A self driving car has millions of times more processing power than the brain of a spider, but shows no signs of consciousness.

If consciousness cannot emerge except as a byproduct of a process of Darwinian selection, which is probable, then any entity undergoing a form of Darwinian selection relatively incompletely compared to humans (or even biological organisms) is inherently incapable of manifesting consciousness outside of the “shard” of information-processing-selection under which it is being (or has been) “trained”.

“The spider acted appropriately to the situation of being carried around on a stick by a predator, which is not something that evolution could have specifically prepared a program for.”

Evolution doesn’t prepare programs that selectively target specific scenarios. It prepares heuristics that simplify the situation down to a very small number of salient features. This sometimes creates the illusion of high intelligence where there is none, and sometimes fails quite spectacularly.

Chess programs are also not optimizing for what we call conscience. They don’t mind shuffling for 49 moves with no progress before doing the pawn break or sacrificing a minor to open up the position which lowers their score from +2.5 to +1.9 but eventually wins.

People say look how stupid they are, but they don’t care because they don’t measure stupidity the same way as we do.

Individuals don’t, and intellectuals shouldn’t, “do” things. Doing things is for movements and offices and officers in those offices.

What we _have_ done about this is let everyone know that leftists are not just cynical – they are openly cynical now – but virtue signaling. Consequently, our officers in the FL state house passed a resolution against pr0n instead of a law against funs.

Have you publicly announced your intention to leak dirt on Clinton or some other such person in a week’s time?

If not, then they’re not.

Still, you can always recant whatever outrageous things you’ve said, reaffirm your loyalty to your rightful Sovereign, and disappear off the face of the earth. No credit, no computer, no car. There are plenty of perfectly pleasant countries in the world with much less competent surveillance apparatus and large peasant population among which you can abide comfortably the rest of your days.

For many people, a great many people, to some degree or another, their publicly expressed political rhetoric essentially boils down to a fear of being ‘left out’; the fear of being abandoned, of being *sacrificed*.

A universe of different ways to say: ‘but what about me’?

The overarching dread of the pack moving on without them, of being deemed by the group, by those more powerful than them, that they ‘don’t make the cut’.

And because they lack that power, like many others, that sublimates all the more into strident mania to convince: ‘take me with you!’

(And if you can give that deal to someone, ‘i will take you with me’, you’re well on your way to building an army.)

A leach line is a drain intended to get rid of water you do not want, gray water from the shower, sewage water from the septic tank, without the water appearing on the surface. The professional way to do it is have a pipe that is open resting on gravel, and partially surrounded by gravel.

I have a properly made leach line draining my septic tank, and an ad hoc leach line for the water from my sink and shower consisting of a series of small pits roofed over by big flat rocks and connected by underground pipes. Not the most professional way to do it, but it works.

[…] “[W]ith improved communications and mobility, we don’t get physical separation between tribes. Which is a problem, because if tribal territories overlap, the natural outcome is that one tribe rules, and the other is ruled.“ […]